Experts raise worries about HPV vaccine

On Aug 4, 9:04 am, The One True Zhen Jue
wrote:
On Aug 4, 8:24 am, bigvince wrote:





On Aug 2, 5:26 am, "JOHN" wrote:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...70801/hpv_vacc...

Experts raise worries about HPV vaccine

Updated Wed. Aug. 1 2007 6:44 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

A group of Canadian public health professionals says there remain a number
of unanswered questions about the HPV vaccine and that a universal
vaccination program in Canada "is premature and could have unintended
negative consequences."

Abby Lippman, a professor of epidemiology at McGill University, and
colleagues, conducted a review of the current literature on the HPV the
vaccine and summarize their conclusions in an editorial in the Canadian
Medical Association Journal.

They found that while it appears that the vaccine is highly effective in
preventing infection with HPV types 16 and 18 (currently thought to be the
cause of about 70% of cervical cancer cases), it's still not clear whether
reducing such infections will translate into fewer cervical cancer deaths in
the long run.

They note that rates of deaths from cervical cancer had been dropping in
Canada for years anyway, because of the widespread availability of
publicly-funded programs for Pap smear testing.

They also note that there are many gaps in knowledge about the vaccine:

a.. It's not clear for how long the vaccine will be effective;
b.. or whether a booster shot will be needed in later years;
c.. and there is also a lack of data, they say, on the effectiveness of
the HPV vaccine when given at the same time as other immunizations.
They also wonder whether a mass HPV vaccination program will lead to
reductions in safer sex practices and Pap screening rates.

And they note that relatively few girls aged 9 to 15 years were enrolled in
the clinical trials of Gardasil and the youngest of whom were followed for
only 18 months. Yet girls in this age group represent the priority target
population for mass vaccination.

And, they note, all of the reported HPV vaccine trials, whether of Gardasil
or its potential competitor Cervarix, were funded in whole or in part by the
vaccine's manufacturer.

Noting that Gardasil is the most expensive childhood vaccine proposed for
mass use (it currently costs $404 for the 3 required doses), the authors
point out that there haven't been any cost-effectiveness analyses to
determine whether the proposed vaccination programs will result in fewer
cancer deaths.

The authors provide some general recommendations for the development of a
mass HPV vaccination program, including a call for government to educate the
public about the realities of cervical cancer, HPV infection and HPV
vaccinations, and to support unbiased research to collect the data now
missing.

"It is time to take a breath and reflect on what we know and what we don't
know, and to develop a plan based on solid, reliable evidence that adds
value for everyone," the authors write.

"Individual girls and women, as well as policy-makers, can make truly
informed decisions about vaccinations only when they have all the evidence,
and today, there are more questions than answers."

As this agrees with the NEJM post on this Thanks for posting it
Is it even possible that this could result in more cancer deaths.?

No, you whack-job, it won't. I prevents cervical cancer, something
that infuriates scientific illiterates like you and Not_A_Dr_Cee.


"Abby Lippman, a professor of epidemiology at McGill University, and
colleagues, conducted a review of the current literature on the HPV
the
vaccine and summarize their conclusions in an editorial in the
Canadian
Medical Association Journal.


They found that while it appears that the vaccine is highly effective
in
preventing infection with HPV types 16 and 18 (currently thought to be
the
cause of about 70% of cervical cancer cases), it's still not clear
whether
reducing such infections will translate into fewer cervical cancer
deaths in
the long run. "

Who should I expect knows more Dr. LIppman who states

" it's still not clear whether
reducing such infections will translate into fewer cervical cancer
deaths in
the long run. "

Or you?

On Aug 7, 8:43 am, bigvince wrote:
On Aug 4, 9:04 am, The One True Zhen Jue
wrote:





On Aug 4, 8:24 am, bigvince wrote:

On Aug 2, 5:26 am, "JOHN" wrote:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...70801/hpv_vacc...

Experts raise worries about HPV vaccine

Updated Wed. Aug. 1 2007 6:44 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

A group of Canadian public health professionals says there remain a number
of unanswered questions about the HPV vaccine and that a universal
vaccination program in Canada "is premature and could have unintended
negative consequences."

Abby Lippman, a professor of epidemiology at McGill University, and
colleagues, conducted a review of the current literature on the HPV the
vaccine and summarize their conclusions in an editorial in the Canadian
Medical Association Journal.

They found that while it appears that the vaccine is highly effective in
preventing infection with HPV types 16 and 18 (currently thought to be the
cause of about 70% of cervical cancer cases), it's still not clear whether
reducing such infections will translate into fewer cervical cancer deaths in
the long run.

They note that rates of deaths from cervical cancer had been dropping in
Canada for years anyway, because of the widespread availability of
publicly-funded programs for Pap smear testing.

They also note that there are many gaps in knowledge about the vaccine:

a.. It's not clear for how long the vaccine will be effective;
b.. or whether a booster shot will be needed in later years;
c.. and there is also a lack of data, they say, on the effectiveness of
the HPV vaccine when given at the same time as other immunizations.
They also wonder whether a mass HPV vaccination program will lead to
reductions in safer sex practices and Pap screening rates.

And they note that relatively few girls aged 9 to 15 years were enrolled in
the clinical trials of Gardasil and the youngest of whom were followed for
only 18 months. Yet girls in this age group represent the priority target
population for mass vaccination.

And, they note, all of the reported HPV vaccine trials, whether of Gardasil
or its potential competitor Cervarix, were funded in whole or in part by the
vaccine's manufacturer.

Noting that Gardasil is the most expensive childhood vaccine proposed for
mass use (it currently costs $404 for the 3 required doses), the authors
point out that there haven't been any cost-effectiveness analyses to
determine whether the proposed vaccination programs will result in fewer
cancer deaths.

The authors provide some general recommendations for the development of a
mass HPV vaccination program, including a call for government to educate the
public about the realities of cervical cancer, HPV infection and HPV
vaccinations, and to support unbiased research to collect the data now
missing.

"It is time to take a breath and reflect on what we know and what we don't
know, and to develop a plan based on solid, reliable evidence that adds
value for everyone," the authors write.

"Individual girls and women, as well as policy-makers, can make truly
informed decisions about vaccinations only when they have all the evidence,
and today, there are more questions than answers."

As this agrees with the NEJM post on this Thanks for posting it
Is it even possible that this could result in more cancer deaths.?

No, you whack-job, it won't. I prevents cervical cancer, something
that infuriates scientific illiterates like you and Not_A_Dr_Cee.

"Abby Lippman, a professor of epidemiology at McGill University, and
colleagues, conducted a review of the current literature on the HPV
the
vaccine and summarize their conclusions in an editorial in the
Canadian
Medical Association Journal.

They found that while it appears that the vaccine is highly effective
in
preventing infection with HPV types 16 and 18 (currently thought to be
the
cause of about 70% of cervical cancer cases), it's still not clear
whether
reducing such infections will translate into fewer cervical cancer
deaths in
the long run. "

Who should I expect knows more Dr. LIppman who states

" it's still not clear whether
reducing such infections will translate into fewer cervical cancer
deaths in
the long run. "

Or you?- Hide quoted text -

Its not about me, dumbass. And as for you, Vince, you are too stupid
to have an informed opinion about anything.
You just feel important when you find a fellow whack-job that hates
children, women, and healthcare consumers in general as much as you
do.

The vaccine does prevent cervical cancers due HPV 16 & 18. They are
the cause of 70% of all cervical cancer. You want to stop the
prevention of those cancers because some jack-ass can't do the math.
You also want to stop other forms of vaccination, such as MMR & DPT.
That puts you square in the middle of anti-vac liar land. Enjoy
hanging out with John Whaleto and the rest of your misanthropic ilk.




- Show quoted text -

On Aug 7, 1:06 pm, The One True Zhen Jue
wrote:
On Aug 7, 8:43 am, bigvince wrote:



On Aug 4, 9:04 am, The One True Zhen Jue
wrote:

On Aug 4, 8:24 am, bigvince wrote:

On Aug 2, 5:26 am, "JOHN" wrote:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...70801/hpv_vacc...

Experts raise worries about HPV vaccine

Updated Wed. Aug. 1 2007 6:44 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

A group of Canadian public health professionals says there remain a number
of unanswered questions about the HPV vaccine and that a universal
vaccination program in Canada "is premature and could have unintended
negative consequences."

Abby Lippman, a professor of epidemiology at McGill University, and
colleagues, conducted a review of the current literature on the HPV the
vaccine and summarize their conclusions in an editorial in the Canadian
Medical Association Journal.

They found that while it appears that the vaccine is highly effective in
preventing infection with HPV types 16 and 18 (currently thought to be the
cause of about 70% of cervical cancer cases), it's still not clear whether
reducing such infections will translate into fewer cervical cancer deaths in
the long run.

They note that rates of deaths from cervical cancer had been dropping in
Canada for years anyway, because of the widespread availability of
publicly-funded programs for Pap smear testing.

They also note that there are many gaps in knowledge about the vaccine:

a.. It's not clear for how long the vaccine will be effective;
b.. or whether a booster shot will be needed in later years;
c.. and there is also a lack of data, they say, on the effectiveness of
the HPV vaccine when given at the same time as other immunizations.
They also wonder whether a mass HPV vaccination program will lead to
reductions in safer sex practices and Pap screening rates.

And they note that relatively few girls aged 9 to 15 years were enrolled in
the clinical trials of Gardasil and the youngest of whom were followed for
only 18 months. Yet girls in this age group represent the priority target
population for mass vaccination.

And, they note, all of the reported HPV vaccine trials, whether of Gardasil
or its potential competitor Cervarix, were funded in whole or in part by the
vaccine's manufacturer.

Noting that Gardasil is the most expensive childhood vaccine proposed for
mass use (it currently costs $404 for the 3 required doses), the authors
point out that there haven't been any cost-effectiveness analyses to
determine whether the proposed vaccination programs will result in fewer
cancer deaths.

The authors provide some general recommendations for the development of a
mass HPV vaccination program, including a call for government to educate the
public about the realities of cervical cancer, HPV infection and HPV
vaccinations, and to support unbiased research to collect the data now
missing.

"It is time to take a breath and reflect on what we know and what we don't
know, and to develop a plan based on solid, reliable evidence that adds
value for everyone," the authors write.

"Individual girls and women, as well as policy-makers, can make truly
informed decisions about vaccinations only when they have all the evidence,
and today, there are more questions than answers."

As this agrees with the NEJM post on this Thanks for posting it
Is it even possible that this could result in more cancer deaths.?

No, you whack-job, it won't. I prevents cervical cancer, something
that infuriates scientific illiterates like you and Not_A_Dr_Cee.

"Abby Lippman, a professor of epidemiology at McGill University, and
colleagues, conducted a review of the current literature on the HPV
the
vaccine and summarize their conclusions in an editorial in the
Canadian
Medical Association Journal.

They found that while it appears that the vaccine is highly effective
in
preventing infection with HPV types 16 and 18 (currently thought to be
the
cause of about 70% of cervical cancer cases), it's still not clear
whether
reducing such infections will translate into fewer cervical cancer
deaths in
the long run. "

Who should I expect knows more Dr. LIppman who states

" it's still not clear whether
reducing such infections will translate into fewer cervical cancer
deaths in
the long run. "

Or you?- Hide quoted text -

Its not about me, dumbass. And as for you, Vince, you are too stupid
to have an informed opinion about anything.
You just feel important when you find a fellow whack-job that hates
children, women, and healthcare consumers in general as much as you
do.

The vaccine does prevent cervical cancers due HPV 16 & 18. They are
the cause of 70% of all cervical cancer. You want to stop the
prevention of those cancers because some jack-ass can't do the math.
You also want to stop other forms of vaccination, such as MMR & DPT.
That puts you square in the middle of anti-vac liar land. Enjoy
hanging out with John Whaleto and the rest of your misanthropic ilk.


I quoted

"Abby Lippman, a professor of epidemiology at McGill University, and
colleagues, conducted a review of the current literature on the HPV
the
vaccine and summarize their conclusions in an editorial in the
Canadian
Medical Association Journal.

His opinion is
" it's still not clear whether
reducing such infections will translate into fewer cervical cancer
deaths in
the long run. "

Perhaps you do not read with the ability to tell the difference My
comments ; Johns comments and Dr. Lippman's comments. I think you
should have any vaccine you want. I do not want 12 year olds to be
forced to be part of an experiment on a cancer that is well controled
by current methods. Untill honest experts with no financial stake in
the outcome agree that this vaccine is safe and effective and prevents
cervical cancer. I oppose it being mandated.You and your family can
make the judgement that it is beneficial and I hope you do. I relie on
experts who are not swayed by the billion a year or so this will
generate. Your position is more that of a sales person take it first
maybe it will work. Please find one statement I have made recommending
that no one be allowed to take any vaccine

"bigvince" wrote in message
ps.com...
Please find one statement I have made recommending
that no one be allowed to take any vaccine


Try and get rid of all the text to save endless scrolling

I know Kinghoff isn't worth scrolling down for

It would be a good psychology task to find out waht makes someone a pharma
troll

someone who is that gullible and so lacking in spiritual nouse that they
worship big brothers main killing machine and income machine after robbing
third worlders